On Jul 31, 2012, at 12:53 , Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> I am worried about this. Of course, there may be situation where this
>> might be handy. But... I am, in general, afraid of building an RDF/XML
>> in JSON. What I mean is that having too much choices to express the
>> same things may lead to user confusion and, ultimately, rejection.
>
> I couldn't agree more and raised the same concern in last week's telecon.
> This specific issue was
>
> RESOLVED: Do not support embedding @contexts within a @context to re-define
> the IRI that a term maps to. [1]
>
>
>> My personal feeling is that we should have a feature freeze in JSON-LD
>> and, rather, look at every feature and variations with eagle eyes to
>> see if they are needed and, in case of doubt, remove them.
>
> I mostly agree with this as well. The only thing I think we should really
> consider is to make @container more powerful, see [2] and [3] for details
> but even there I'm not sure whether this really needs to go into JSON-LD
> 1.0.
>
>
Well...
I think one of the criteria we will have to use is that if I look at an example and it is not immediately clear what a feature really does, then this is a candidate for removal. I guess criteria, mainly in view of the audience of JSON-LD, is valid, though, I admit, fuzzy.
Well, I looked at both [2] and [3] and none of these passed this test:-( Plus I do not see the real necessity to add features to generate those particular output. Ie, at this moment, I would not be in favour of adding any of those two things into JSON-LD. Feature freeze...:-)
Ivan
> [1] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/144#issuecomment-7209951
> [2] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/133
> [3] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/134
>
>
>
> P.S.: Sorry for my last fat-fingered mail.
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf